Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
UNEP
REPORT OF THE
HALONS TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 2014
TECHNICAL NOTE #1 REVISION 4
FIRE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES TO HALONS
UNEP
REPORT OF THE HALONS TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 2014
TECHNICAL NOTE #1 - REVISION 4
FIRE PROTECTION ALTERNATIVES TO HALONS
ii
Reproduction:
Date:
December 2014
Under certain conditions, printed copies of this report are available from:
UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMME
Ozone Secretariat, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya
This document is also available in portable document format from the UNEP Ozone Secretariats
website:
http://ozone.unep.org/en/assessment_panels_bodies.php?committee_id=6
No copyright involved. This publication may be freely copied, abstracted and cited, with
acknowledgement of the source of the material.
ISBN:
iii
Disclaimer
The United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP), the Technology and Economic
Assessment Panel (TEAP) Co-chairs and members, the Technical and Economics Options
Committees, Co-chairs and members, the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs and members, and the
companies and organisations that employ them do not endorse the performance, worker safety, or
environmental acceptability of any of the technical or economic options discussed. Every
industrial operation requires consideration of worker safety and proper disposal of contaminants
and waste products. Moreover, as work continues - including additional toxicity evaluation more information on health, environmental and safety effects of alternatives and replacements
will become available for use in selecting among the options discussed in this document.
UNEP, the TEAP Co-chairs and members, the Technical and Economic Options Committees Cochairs and members, and the TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs and members, in furnishing or
distributing the information that follows, do not make any warranty or representation, either
expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness or utility; nor do they assume
any liability of any kind whatsoever resulting from the use or reliance upon any information,
material, or procedure contained herein, including but not limited to any claims regarding health,
safety, environmental effect or fate, efficacy, or performance, made by the source of the material.
Mention of any company, association, or product in this document is for information purposes
only and does not constitute a recommendation of any such company, association, or product,
either expressed or implied by UNEP, the Technology and Economic Assessment Panel Cochairs or members, the Technical and Economics Options Committees Co-chairs or members, the
TEAP Task Forces Co-chairs or members, and the companies and organisations that employ
them.
iv
Acknowledgements
The UNEP Halons Technical Options Committee (HTOC) acknowledges with thanks the
outstanding contributions from all individuals and organisations that provided technical support
to Committee members.
The opinions expressed are those of the Committee and do not necessarily reflect the views of
any sponsoring or supporting organisations.
The following persons were instrumental in developing this report:
Committee Co-chairs
David Catchpole
PRA
United Kingdom
Dr. Sergey Kopylov
All Russian Research Institute for Fire Protection
Russian Federation
Dr. Daniel Verdonik
Hughes Associates, Inc.
USA
Committee Members
Tareq K. Al-Awad
King Abdullah II Design & Development Bureau
Jordan
Jamal Alfuzaie
Kuwait Fire Department
Kuwait
Seunghwan (Charles) Choi
Hanju Chemical Co., Ltd.
South Korea
Adam Chattaway
UTC Aerospace Systems
UK
Dr. Michelle Collins
EECO, Inc.
USA
vi
Consulting Experts
Tom Cortina
Halon Alternatives Research Corporation
USA
Matsuo Ishiyama
Nohmi Bosai Ltd. & Fire and Environment Protection Network
Japan
Dr. Nikolai Kopylov
All Russian Research Institute for Fire Protection
Russia
Dr. David Liddy
Consultant - Retired
United Kingdom
Steve McCormick
United States Army
USA
John G. Owens
3M Company
USA
Dr. Mark Robin
DuPont, Inc.
USA
Dr. Joseph Senecal
Kidde-Fenwal, Inc.
USA
Dr. Ronald Sheinson
Naval Research Laboratory - Retired
USA
Ronald Sibley
ConsultantDefence Supply Center
USA
vii
Peer Reviewers
The Halons Technical Options Committee also acknowledges with thanks the following peer
reviewers who took time from their busy schedules to review the draft of this report and provided
constructive comments. At the sole discretion of the Halons Technical Options Committee, these
comments may or may not have been accepted and incorporated into the report. Therefore,
listing of the Peer Reviewers should not be taken as an indication that any reviewer endorses the
content of the report, which remains solely the opinion of the members of the Committee.
Marie-Eve Brihaye - DGAC/DSAC NO/ST, France
Bradford Colton - American Pacific Corporation, USA
John Demeter - Wesco, USA
Brent Ehmke - Ehmke Associates, USA
Louise Jackman - Suppresion and Fire Safety, UK
Steve Montzka - NOAA, USA
Pete Mullenhard - Leidos, USA
Yoshio Ogawa - National Research Institute of Fire and Disaster, Japan
Milosh Puchovsky Worcester Polytechnic Institute, USA
Michael Stevens NASA, USA
Dawn Turner - Manitoba Hydro, Canada
viii
UNEP
REPORT OF THE HALONS TECHNICAL OPTIONS COMMITTEE
DECEMBER 2014
TECHNICAL NOTE #1 - REVISION 4
Fire Protection Alternatives To Halon
Table of Contents
1.0
2.0
3.0
Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1
1.1
Overview ..................................................................................................................1
1.2
Agent Toxicity..........................................................................................................3
1.3
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.7.2
2.7.3
2.7.4
2.7.5
2.7.6
General ...................................................................................................................26
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.10
3.11
4.0
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................36
5.0
Sources ...............................................................................................................................36
List of Tables
Table 1: Classifications of fuel types by region ............................................................................. 1
Table 2: Non-ODS Halocarbon Agents .......................................................................................... 6
Table 3: HCFC Halocarbon Agents ............................................................................................... 7
Table 4: Physical Properties (20 C) of Halocarbon Agents Used in Total Flooding Applications
(1) ..................................................................................................................................... 8
Table 5: Halocarbon Agents Used in Total Flooding Applications Minimum Extinguishing
Concentrations and Agent Exposure Limits ..................................................................... 9
Table 6: Halocarbon Agents Used in Total Flooding Applications Environmental Factors ..... 10
Table 7: Halocarbon Agents Used in Total Flooding Applications Agent Quantity
Requirements (20 C) for Class A Combustible Hazard Applications (1, 2) ..................11
Table 8: Halocarbon Agents Used in Total Flooding Applications - Agent Requirements for
Class B Fuel Applications (1, 2) ..................................................................................... 12
Table 9: Inert Gas Clean Agents .................................................................................................. 13
Table 10: Properties of Inert Gas Agents for Fixed Systems ....................................................... 14
Table 11: Exposure limits for inert gas agents ............................................................................. 15
Table 12: Inert Gas Agents Fixed System Features ..................................................................... 16
Table 13: Carbon Dioxide ............................................................................................................ 18
Table 14: Water Mist Technology ................................................................................................ 19
Table 15: Inert Gas Generators .................................................................................................... 21
Table 16: Fine Solid Particles (Powders) ..................................................................................... 22
Table 17: Carbon dioxide streaming agent .................................................................................. 26
Table 18: Halocarbon Streaming Agents ..................................................................................... 27
Table 19: Halocarbon chemical streaming agents........................................................................ 28
Table 20: Dry chemical streaming agents .................................................................................... 29
Table 21: Water, straight stream ................................................................................................... 29
Table 22: Fine water spray as a streaming agent ......................................................................... 30
Table 23: Aqueous salt solutions streaming agents ...................................................................... 31
Table 24: Aqueous film-forming foam as a streaming agent ....................................................... 32
Table 25: Suitability of fire extinguishing agent alternatives to halon 1211 for use in local
application fire protection in residential applications .................................................... 33
Table 26: Portable fire extinguisher capability comparison ........................................................ 34
Table 27: Properties of developmental halocarbon agents with low GWP ................................. 35
xi
Preface
Technical Note #1, Fire Protection Alternatives to Halons, replaces the chapters on this subject
that have been part of previous Assessment Reports of the UNEP Halon Technical Options
Committee (HTOC). Future reports, including the 2014 Assessment Report, will contain an
abbreviated chapter that briefly introduces the subject of Alternatives and refers the interested
reader to this document. The HTOC elected to take this approach as much of the information
that, while important to understand when developing strategies for selecting alternatives to
halons, has been largely reported in prior editions of Assessment Reports. The Assessment
Reports contain important new updates on evolving technologies but this usually forms only a
small portion of the chapter content. As such, it was deemed by the HTOC to make the
Alternatives subject a stand-alone document that is referenced by future Assessment Reports. By
this approach those having particular interest in the technical aspects of the Alternatives subject
can access a self-contained document addressing those issues.
1.0
1.1
Introduction
Overview
Technical Note #1 addresses the technical aspects of the alternatives available to the use of
halons, ozone depleting substances (ODS), as fire extinguishing agents. As such, it is useful to
understand the different types of fires as they relate to selection of the best available alternatives
to halon extinguishing agents.
There are several categories of fire types based on the physical or chemical nature of the fuel
involved. The designation of the classification of fuel types varies by region and is summarised
below.
Table 1: Classifications of fuel types by region
Region
Ordinary combustibles (wood, paper,
plastics, etc.)
Flammable liquids
Class A
Class A
Class B
Class B
Class B
Flammable gases
Class B
Class C
Class C
Electrical equipment
Class C
n/a
Class E
Combustible metals
Class D
Class D
Class D
Class K
Class F
Class F
Halons were not used on fires involving combustible metals. Nor were they used for fire
extinguishment in commercial cooking applications (hot cooking oils). Halons were commonly
used for fire protection in applications involving the other listed fire classes - ordinary
combustibles, flammable liquids, flammable gases, and electrical equipment. Each fire protection
Page 1 of 37
Page 2 of 37
NFPA 2001 now recognizes that that Class A fire hazards involving electrified equipment
may pose additional extinguishing risks. In such cases higher minimum agent design
concentrations are recommended.
Both NFPA 2001 and ISO-14520 are now in harmony with respect to requiring a 30 %
minimum safety factor where the fire hazard is due to Class B flammable and
combustible liquids. The minimum safety factor for Class A surface fire hazards is either
20 % or 30 %, depending on the governing standard and the type of agent. This means
that the minimum design concentration (MDC) of a gaseous fire extinguishing agent must
be at least 1.2 or 1.3 times the minimum extinguishing concentration (MEC), as
determined by test, for a particular fire hazard and depending on which standard governs
the application.
The following two subsections provide an overview of toxicity and environmental aspects of
alternatives to halons. More detailed information on these topics and other agent properties is
presented in sections 2.0 and 3.0, which address total flooding and streaming agents,
respectively.
1.2
Agent Toxicity
In general, personnel should not be exposed unnecessarily to atmospheres into which gaseous
fire extinguishing agents have been discharged. Mixtures of air and halon 1301 have low toxicity
at fire extinguishing concentrations and there is little risk posed to personnel that might be
exposed in the event of an unexpected discharge of agent into an occupied space. The acceptance
of new agents for use in total flooding fire protection in normally occupied spaces has been
based on criteria that have evolved over the period of introduction of new technologies into the
marketplace. In the case of inert gas agents the usual concern is the residual oxygen
concentration in the protected space after discharge. For chemical agents the primary health issue
is cardiac effects as a consequence of absorption of the agent into the blood stream. The highest
agent concentration for which no adverse effect is observed is designated the NOAEL for no
observed adverse effect level. The lowest agent concentration for which an adverse effect is
observed is designated the LOAEL for lowest observed adverse effect level. This means of
assessing chemical agents has been further enhanced by application of physiologically based
pharmacokinetic modelling, or PBPK modelling, which accounts for exposure times. Some
agents have their use concentration limits based on PBPK analysis. The approach is described in
more detail in ISO 14520-1, Annex G, 2nd Edition (2006). Health issues for the other alternatives
(e.g. CO2, water mist, fine solid particulate) are described in more detail later in this document.
1.3
Environmental Factors
The primary environmental factors to be considered for halocarbon agents 1 are ozone-depletion
potential (ODP), global-warming potential (GWP), and atmospheric lifetime, values of which are
noted in Tables 1-2, 1-3, 1-6, 1-13, 1-17, 1-18, 1-19, and 1-27. It is important to select the fire
1
Page 3 of 37
2.0
HCFCs are scheduled for a production and consumption 2 phase out for fire protection
uses under the Montreal Protocol in 2020 in non-Article 5 Parties and 2030 in Article 5
Parties.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has
identified carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and the fluorochemicals HFCs, PFCs
and SF6 as the basket of long-lived (>1 year) gases primarily responsible for
anthropogenic changes to the greenhouse effect and potentially subject to emission
controls. All uses of fluorochemicals represent 45% of current worldwide greenhouse
gas emissions from long-lived gases on a carbon equivalent basis and fire protection uses
represent less than 1% of those fluorochemical emissions.
In the EU, Regulation (EU) No. 517/2014 (known as the F Gas Regulation), establishes
rules on containment, use, recovery and destruction of fluorinated greenhouse gases in
order to protect the environment. Related ancillary measures impose conditions on the
placing on the market of specific products and equipment that contain, or whose
functioning relies upon, fluorinated greenhouse gases, and establishes quantitative limits
for the placing on the market of hydrofluorocarbons.
Consumption equals production plus imports minus exports for an individual country.
Page 4 of 37
Halocarbon agents
The tables below summarize key attributes of commercially available, technically proven
halocarbon alternatives to halons for total flooding fire protection using fixed systems. The
attributes addressed relate to efficacy, toxicity, volatility, environmental and relative cost
characteristics. Cost effectiveness is represented by an index that is benchmarked against carbon
dioxide total flooding systems, averaged over a wide range of application sizes, exclusive of the
cost of pipe, fittings and installation and is based on 2003 data. Owing to commercial
confidentiality, it has not been possible to use more current data, but nevertheless the indices are
believed to be relatively accurate.
Page 5 of 37
FK-5-1-12
HFC-23
HFC-125
HFC-227ea
Efficacy
MDC(A) = 11.2
vol%
(1)
MDC(B) = 12.1
vol%
NOAEL = 10 vol%
NOAEL = 30 vol%
LOAEL = 10 vol%
Approved for use in
occupied spaces at
up to 11.5 vol%
based on PBPK
modelling.
LOAEL = 10.5
vol%
Approved for use in
occupied spaces at
up to 10.5 vol%
based on PBPK
modelling.
Some acidic decomposition products are formed when a halogenated fire extinguishing
agent extinguishes a fire.
Safety
Characteristics
Environmental
Characteristics (2)
Liquid at 20 C
Liquefied compressed
gas.
Liquefied
compressed gas.
Liquefied
compressed gas.
B.P. = -82 C
B.P. = -48.1 C
B.P. = -16.4C
ODP = 0
ODP = 0
ODP = 0
ODP = 0
GWP = <1
GWP = 12 400
GWP = 3170
GWP = 3350
~2.0 to 2.3
Not available
~1.5
B.P. = 49.2 C
Cost-Effectiveness,
avg. for 500 to 5000
~1.7 to 2.0
m3 volume (2003
data)
Note 1: MDC(A) and MDC(B) refer to the minimum design concentration for a Class A or Class B fire hazard.
Note 2: Source: IPCC 5th WGI Assessment Report
Page 6 of 37
Efficacy
Toxicity
HCFC Blend A
82 wt% HCFC 22
9.5 wt% HCFC 124
4.75 wt% HCFC 123
3.75 wt% isopropenyl-1-methylcyclohexane
For use in occupied spaces
HCFC-124
MDC(A) = (1)
NOAEL = 10 vol%
NOAEL = 1 vol%
Some acidic decomposition products are formed when a halogenated fire extinguishing
agent extinguishes a fire.
Safety Characteristics
Environmental
Characteristics (2)
Cost-Effectiveness,
avg. for 500 to 5000
m3 volume (2003
data)
B.P. = -38.2 C
B.P. = -12.1 C
ODP
GWP
HCFC-22
0.055
1,760
HCFC 124
0.022
527
HCFC-123
0.02
ODP = 0.022
GWP = 527
79
Varies from 1 to 2
Varies from 1 to 2
Page 7 of 37
Liquid
Density
(kg/m3)
k1
(m3/kg)
(2)
k2
(m3/kg-C)
(2)
s, Vapour
Specific
Volume
(m3/kg)
Vapour
Density
(kg/m3)
14.3
1,574
0.14781
0.000567
0.1592
6.283
HCFC Blend A
8.25
1,200
0.2413
0.00088
0.2589
3.862
HFC-23
41.8
807
0.3164
0.0012
0.3404
2.938
HFC-125
12.05
1,218
0.1825
0.0007
0.1965
5.089
HFC-227ea
3.9
1,41
0.1269
0.000513
0.1372
7.29
HFC-236fa
2.3
1,377
0.1413
0.0006
0.1533
6.523
FK-5-1-12
0.33
1,616
0.0664
0.000274
0.0719
13.912
12.57
1,190
0.2172
0.0009
0.2352
4.252
Generic Name
Note 1: All values from ISO 14520 except where noted: (a) NFPA 12A (2009) and Thermodynamic Properties of
Freon 13B1 (DuPont T-13B1); (b) American Pacific Corp.
Note 2: Agent vapour specific volume is calculated as s = k1 + k2 t at standard atmospheric pressure, 1.013 bar,
where t is the vapour temperature in C. Vapour density = 1/s.
Page 8 of 37
Generic Name
ISO 14520 reference
Halon 1301
HCFC Blend A
ISO 14520-6
HFC-23
ISO 14520-10
HFC-125
ISO 14520-8
HFC-227ea
ISO 14520-9
HFC-236fa
ISO 14520-11
FK-5-1-12
ISO 14520-5
HFC Blend B (4)
Minimum
Minimum
Design Conc., Design Conc.,
Class A Fire
Class B Fire
vol % (1)
vol % (1)
Inerting
Conc.
Methane
/Air,
vol %
NOAEL
vol % (2)
LOAEL
vol % (2)
Maximum
Conc. for 5
min.
Exposure,
vol % (6)
5.0 (3)
5.0 (3)
4.9
7.5
13.0 (7)
13.0
20.5
10
>10
10
16.3
16.4
22.2
30
>50
30
11.2
12.1
7.5
10
11.5
7.9
9.0
8.8
10.5
10.5
8.8
9.8
10
15
12
5.3
5.9
8.8
10
>10
10
14.7 (5)
14.7
7.5
Note 1: Minimum design concentration as given in Table 5 of ISO 14520-(agent-specific volume), where available.
Note 2: A halocarbon agent may be used at a concentration up to its NOAEL value in normally occupied enclosures
provided the maximum expected exposure time of personnel is not more than five minutes. A halocarbon
agent may be used at a concentration up to the LOAEL value in normally occupied and normally
unoccupied enclosures provided certain criteria are met that depend on agent toxicity and egress time. The
reader is referred to NFPA 2001-1.5 (2008) and ISO 14520-G.4.3 (2006) for details of the recommended
safe exposure guidelines for halocarbon agents.
Note 3: Exceptions, halon 1301 design concentration is taken as the historical employed value of 5%.
Note 4: Not approved for use in occupied spaces.
Note 5: Agent manufacturer did not provide Class A extinguishing concentration data. Class A design concentration
in this case was taken as Class B design concentration.
Note 6: Agent exposure guidance is as indicated in ISO 14520-1 (2006) Annex G.
Page 9 of 37
Ozone
Depletion Potential (1)
Global Warming
Potential,
100 yr. (2)
Atmospheric Life
Time,
yr. (2)
10
7,140
65
0.055
1,760
11.9
0.022
527
5.9
0.02
79
1.3
HFC-23
12,400
222
HFC-125
3,170
28.2
HFC-227ea
3,350
38.9
HFC-236fa
8,060
242
FK-5-1-12
<1
7 days
1,300
13.4
3,170
28.2
Generic
Name
Halon 1301
HCFC-22 (component in HCFC
Blend A)
HCFC-124 (component in HCFC
Blend A)
HCFC-123 (component in HCFC
Blend A)
Page 10 of 37
Generic
Name
Cylinder
Agent
Agent Liquid Maximum
Storage
Mass,
Volume
Cylinder Fill
Volume
kg/m3 of
litre/m3
Density,
Relative to
Mass
kg/m3
Halon 1301
Protected Relative to of Protected
Volume Halon 1301
Volume
(3)
(4)
Cylinder
Pressure
@ 20C,
bar
0.331
1.000
0.210
1,121
1.00
25 or 42
HCFC Blend A
0.577
1.74
0.481
900
2.17
25 or 42
HFC-23
0.572
1.73
0.708
860
2.25
43
HFC-125
0.701
1.93
0.525
929
2.33
25
HFC-227ea
0.722
1.89
0.444
1,150
1.84
25 or 42
HFC-236fa
0.629
1.91
0.459
1,200
1.78
25 or 42
FK-5-1-12
0.779
2.35
0.482
1,480
1.78
25, 34.5, 42
or 50
0.733
2.22
0.616
929
2.67
25 or 42
Note 1: Halon alternative agent quantities based on a safety factor of 1.3. Nominal maximum discharge time is 10
seconds in all cases.
Note 2: Mass and volume ratios based on Minimum Class A Fire Design Concentrations. See Table 5.
Note 3: Fill density based on 25 bar pressurisation except for HFC-23.
Note 4: Agent cylinder volume per m3 protected volume = (Agent Mass, kg/m3 protected volume)/ (Maximum Fill
Density, kg/m3 cylinder) = (VCYL/VProtVol). For halon 1301 cylinder volume per m3 hazard = (0.331 kg/m3
hazard)/ (1,121 kg/m3 cylinder) = 0.0002953 m3 cylinder /m3 protected volume.
Note 5: NFPA 12A; ASTM D5632.
Note 6: Agent manufacturer did not supply complete Class A extinguishing data, hence no Class A MDC
established; the heptane MDC was employed in this table.
Note 7: NFPA 2001 (2012).
Page 11 of 37
Generic
Name
Halon 1301
Agent Mass,
kg/m3 of
Protected
Volume
0.331
Cylinder
Storage
Agent Liquid Maximum
Volume
Cylinder Fill
Volume
Relative to
Density,
litre/m3
Mass
3
Halon 1301
kg/m
Relative to of Protected
Halon 1301
Volume
(3)
(4)
1.00
0.210
1,121
1.00
Cylinder
Pressure
@ 20C,
bar
25 or 42
HCFC Blend A
0.577
1.74
0.481
900
2.17
25 or 42
HFC-23
0.575
1.74
0.713
860
2.27
43
HFC-125
0.698
2.11
0.573
929
2.55
25
HFC-227ea
0.720
2.18
0.512
1,150
2.12
25 or 42
HFC-236fa
0.711
2.15
0.516
1,200
2.01
25 or 42
FK-5-1-12
0.872
2.63
0.540
1,480
2.00
25, 34.5, 42
or 50
HFC Blend B
0.733
2.22
0.616
929
2.67
25 or 42
Note 1: Halon alternative agent quantities based on a safety factor of 1.3. Nominal maximum discharge time is 10
seconds in all cases.
Note 2: Mass and volume ratios based on "Minimum Class B Fire Design Concentrations." See Table 5.
Note 3: Fill density based on 25 bar pressurisation except for HFC-23.
Note 4: Agent cylinder volume per m3 of protected volume = (Agent Mass, kg/m3 of protected volume)/(Maximum
Fill Density, kg/m3 cylinder) = (VCYL/VProtVol). For halon 1301 cylinder volume per m3 of protected volume
= (0.331 kg/m3 hazard)/ (1,121 kg/m3 cylinder) =
0.0002953 m3 cylinder/m3 of protected volume.
2.2
Inert gas clean agents have zero ODP and zero GWP. 4 There have been at least four inert gases or
gas mixtures commercialised as clean total flooding fire suppression agents. Inert gas agents are
typically used at design concentrations of 35 vol % to 50 vol %, which reduces the ambient
oxygen concentration to between 14 vol % to 10 vol %, respectively. Reduced oxygen
concentration (hypoxia) is the principal human safety risk for inert gases except for carbon
dioxide which has serious human health effects at progressive severity as its concentration
increases above 4 vol %. Inert gas agents mixed with air lead to flame extinguishment by
physical mechanisms only. The inert gas agents commercialised since 1990 consist of nitrogen,
4
Page 12 of 37
Inert gases can be supplied from high pressure cylinders, from low pressure cryogenic
cylinders, or from pyrotechnic solids. High pressure systems use pressure reducing
devices at or near the discharge manifold. This reduces the pipe thickness requirements
and alleviates concerns regarding high pressure discharges.
High pressure system discharge times are on the order of one to two minutes. This may
limit some applications involving very rapidly developing fires.
Inert gas agents are not subject to thermal decomposition and hence form no hazardous
by-products.
The table below summarizes key attributes of inert gas clean agents.
Table 9: Inert Gas Clean Agents
Agent
IG-01
IG-100
IG-55
IG-541
Efficacy
MDC(A) = 41.9
vol%
MDC(A) = 40.3
vol%
MDC(A) = 40.3
vol%
MDC(A) = 39.9
vol%
MDC(B) = 51 vol
%
MDC(B) = 47.5
vol %
Toxicity
Safety Characteristics
Environmental
Characteristics
No adverse characteristics
Cost-Effectiveness,
avg. for 500 to 5000
m3 volume (2003
data)
~1.8
~1.8
Page 13 of 37
~1.8
~1.8
IG-55
ISO
14520-14
Nitrogen
52 %
50 %
Argon
40 %
50 %
100 %
Carbon Dioxide
8%
Generic name
IG-01
ISO
14520-12
IG-100
ISO 1452013
Agent composition
100 %
Environmental factors
Ozone depletion potential
0.65799
0.6598
0.5612
0.7998
0.00239
0.00242
0.00205
0.00293
0.697
0.708
0.602
0.858
1.434
1.412
1.661
1.165
39.9
40.3
41.9
40.3
12.6
12.5
12.2
12.5
41.2
47.5
51
43.7
12.3
11.0
10.3
11.8
47.3
61.4
11.0
8.1
Physical properties
Extinguishing (2)
Note 1: Agent vapour specific volume = k1 + k2t, m /kg at an atmospheric pressure of 1.013 bar where t is the
vapour temperature in C. Vapour density = 1/s.
Note 2: Extinguishing and design concentration values from ISO 14520 2nd Edition (2006).
Page 14 of 37
Concentration Residual
Oxygen Concentration
Permitted
Occupancy
Exposure Time
Limit
< 43 vol %
> 12 vol %
Normally occupied
5 min
43 to 52 vol %
10 to 12 vol %
Normally occupied
3 min
52 to 62 vol %
8 to 10 vol %
Normally occupied
30 sec
> 62 vol %
< 8 vol %
Normally unoccupied
Inert gas agent IG-541 contains 8% carbon dioxide and is approved by the U.S. EPA SNAP rules as a safe alternative to
halon 1301 in total flooding fire protection systems. At elevated concentrations, however, carbon dioxide is not safe for
human exposure and is lethal at fire extinguishing concentrations.
Page 15 of 37
IG-541
IG-55
IG-01
IG-100
43
43
43
43
52
52
52
52
0.381
0.387
0.407
0.387
3.38
3.44
3.01
2.87
11.1
11.2
9.90
9.40
0.577
0.644
0.712
0.575
3.84
4.30
3.95
3.19
12.6
14.0
13.0
10.4
16;67;80
16;67;80
16;67;80
16;67;80
150 to 300
150 to 300
150 to 300
150 to 300
60
60
60
60
System Features
Available cylinder sizes (typical), litre
Available cylinder pressures, bar
Nominal Discharge Time, seconds
Note 1:
Note 2:
Note 3:
Note 4:
Note 5:
Page 16 of 37
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide was used widely for fire protection prior to the introduction of halons. Owing to
its toxicity, use of carbon dioxide in occupied or occupiable spaces requires the implementation
of significant safety measures. Nonetheless, carbon dioxide has seen a resurgence in use
subsequent to the halon production phase out, particularly in new commercial ship construction
where halon 1301 once had a significant role. Minimum design concentrations for carbon
dioxide are specified in national and international standards such as NFPA 12 and ISO 6183. The
minimum design concentration for carbon dioxide systems is, typically, 35 vol % for Class B
fuels and 34 vol % for Class A applications.
Carbon dioxide toxicity
Carbon dioxide is essentially chemically inert as a fire extinguishing gas. Carbon dioxide does,
however, have significant adverse physiological effects when inhaled at concentrations above
4 vol %. The severity of physiological effects increases as the concentration of carbon dioxide in
air increases. Exposure to carbon dioxide at concentrations exceeding 10 vol % poses severe
health risks including risk of death. As such, atmospheres containing carbon dioxide at fire
extinguishing concentrations are always lethal to humans. Precautions must always be taken to
ensure that occupied spaces are not put at risk by ingress of carbon dioxide from a space into
which the agent has been discharged.
The use of carbon dioxide is not recommended for total flooding of normally occupied spaces.
NFPA 12 (2008) includes new restrictions on the use of carbon dioxide in normally occupied
spaces. Safety precautions related to the use of carbon dioxide may also be found in ISO 6183
(2009).
Environmental factors of carbon dioxide
The carbon dioxide used in fire protection applications is not produced for this use. Instead, it is
captured from an otherwise emissive use temporarily sequestering it until it is released. Thus,
carbon dioxide from fire protection uses has no net effect on the climate.
The table below summarizes key attributes of carbon dioxide.
Page 17 of 37
Efficacy
Toxicity
Safety Characteristics
Environmental
Characteristics
GWP = 1
Cost-Effectiveness, avg.
for 500 to 5 000 m3
volume (2003 data)
2.4
Water mist fire suppression technologies are described in national and international standards
such as NFPA 750 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems and the FM Approvals
Standard No. 5560 Water Mist Systems.
Water mist system technologies strive to generate and distribute within a protected space very
small mist droplets which serve to extinguish flames by the combined effects of cooling and
oxygen dilution by steam generated upon water evaporation. Technologies used to generate fine
water mists include:
Page 18 of 37
Water mist
Toxicity
None
Safety Characteristics
Environmental
Characteristics
No adverse characteristics
Cost-Effectiveness,
avg. for a 3 000 m3
application space
~2
Water mist systems offer some advantages due to their low environmental impact, ability to
suppress three-dimensional flammable liquid fires under defined conditions, and reduced water
application rates relative to automatic sprinklers in certain applications. More recent innovations
include use of nitrogen with water mist to achieve inert gas extinguishing effects, and use of bifluid (air-water) nozzles to achieve ultrafine droplets and adjustable spray patterns (by varying
the air-water ratio). The use of relatively small (10-100 m) diameter water droplets as a gas
phase extinguishing agent has been established for at least 40 years. Advances in nozzle design
and improved theoretical understanding of fire suppression processes has led to the development
of at least nine technologies for use in water mist fire suppression systems. Several systems have
been approved by national authorities for use in relatively narrow application areas. To date,
these applications include shipboard machinery spaces, combustion turbine enclosures,
flammable and combustible liquid storage spaces as well as light and ordinary hazard sprinkler
application areas.
Theoretical analysis of water droplet suppression efficiencies has indicated that a liquid water
volume concentration on the order of 0.1 litre of water per cubic meter of protected space is
sufficient to extinguish fires. This represents a potential of two orders of magnitude efficiency
improvement over application rates typically used in conventional sprinklers. The most
important aspect of water mist technology is the extent to which the mist spray can be mixed and
Page 19 of 37
Inert gas generators are pyrotechnic devices that utilise a solid material which oxidises rapidly,
producing large quantities of carbon dioxide and/or nitrogen. Recent innovations include
generators that produce high purity nitrogen or nitrogen and water vapour with little particulate
content. The use of this technology to date has been limited to specialised applications such as
dry bays on military aircraft. This technology has demonstrated excellent performance in these
applications with space and weight requirements equivalent to those of halon 1301 and is
currently being utilised in some US Navy aircraft applications. The table below summarizes key
attributes of inert-gas generator agents.
Table 15: Inert Gas Generators
Agent
Efficacy
Toxicity
Safety Characteristics
Environmental
Characteristics
No adverse characteristics
Cost-Effectiveness
Not available
Physiological effects of inert gas generator agents. The precise composition and properties of the
gas produced will affect the response of exposed persons and are determinant factors regarding
application in occupied or unoccupied areas. U.S. EPA SNAP has listed as acceptable a gas
generator that produces relatively pure nitrogen for use in normally occupied spaces.
Environmental effects of inert gas generator agents. Gases emitted by these products do not
contribute to stratospheric ozone depletion or to greenhouse warming of the atmosphere except
to the extent that they emit carbon dioxide, if any.
Page 21 of 37
Another category of technologies being developed and introduced are those related to fine solid
particulates and aerosols. These take advantage of the well-established fire suppression
capability of solid particulates, with potentially reduced collateral damage associated with
traditional dry chemicals. This technology is being pursued independently by several groups and
is proprietary. To date, a number of aerosol generating extinguishing compositions and aerosol
extinguishing means have been developed in several countries. They are in production and are
used to protect a range of hazards. The table below summarizes key attributes of fine solid
particle agents (powders).
Table 16: Fine Solid Particles (Powders)
Agent
Efficacy
Toxicity
Safety Characteristics
Environmental
Characteristics
No adverse characteristics
Cost-Effectiveness
Not available
One principle of these aerosol extinguishants is in generating solid aerosol particles and inert
gases in the concentration required and distributing them uniformly in the protected volume.
Aerosol and inert gases are formed through a burning reaction of the pyrotechnic charge having a
specially proportioned composition. An insight into an extinguishing effect of aerosol
compositions has shown that extinguishment is achieved by combined action of two factors such
as flame cooling due to aerosol particles heating and vaporizing in the flame front as well as a
chemical action on the radical level. Solid aerosols must act directly upon the flame. Gases serve
as a mechanism for delivering the aerosol towards the seat of a fire.
Page 22 of 37
Care must be taken throughout the design process to assure satisfactory system performance.
Hazard definition, nozzle location and design concentration must be specified within carefully
defined limits. Further, a high degree of enclosure integrity is required. Design requirements are
provided by national and international standards such as NFPA 2001 and ISO 14520. An outline
of factors to be taken into consideration is given below:
Page 23 of 37
2.7.2
Fan test to confirm tightness of protected volume and adequacy of pressure relief venting
Acceptance functional test of full system without discharge
2.7.6
Size
Routing
Number and placement of fittings
Pipe supports
Correct type, style, orifice size nozzle in each location
Net volume and temperature range of the space does not change
Regular maintenance for detection, control, alarm and actuation system
Regular verification of the agent containers' charged weight
Regular cleaning of the detection devices
Confirmation of back-up battery condition
3.0
3.1
Local application agents, also referred to as streaming agents, are used in portable fire
extinguishers and fixed extinguisher units designed to protect specific hazards. The tables below
summarize commercially available, technically proven alternatives to halons for local application
fire protection using portable or fixed systems. Cost effectiveness is represented by an index
benchmarked against the approximate cost of a portable carbon dioxide extinguisher unit that has
a UL 10B rating. Acceptability of substitutes for halons as streaming fire extinguishing agents is
also regulated by national agencies as addressed in section 2.0, above.
3.2
Carbon dioxide extinguishers use CO2 stored as a liquefied compressed gas. Carbon dioxide is
most suitable for use on fires involving flammable liquids. Carbon dioxide does not conduct
electricity and can be used safely on fires involving live electrical circuits. In general, carbon
dioxide extinguishers are less effective for extinguishing fires of ordinary combustibles such as
wood, paper and fabrics.
The table below summarizes key attributes of carbon dioxide as a streaming agent.
Table 17: Carbon dioxide streaming agent
Agent
Efficacy
Toxicity
Safety Characteristics
Environmental Characteristics
GWP = 1
Cost-Effectiveness
Page 26 of 37
3.3
Halocarbon Agents
Halocarbon streaming agents come close to matching all the desirable properties of halon. For
example they are effective on both solid and liquid fuel fires and they permeate well avoiding
secondary damage. However, in general, they are more expensive than traditional fire protection
agents and, on average more agent is required than would be for halon 1211. The table below
summarises type, composition, and environmental properties of halocarbon alternatives to halon
1211, also included for reference, for use as local application agents.
Table 18: Halocarbon Streaming Agents
Chemical
Composition
Environmental Factors
Generic
Name
Group
Storage
State
Weight %
Species
ODP
100 year
GWP (1)
Atmospheric
Lifetime yr.
Halon 1211
Halon
LCG
100 %
CF2ClBr
1,750
16
HFC-236fa
HFC
LCG
100 %
CF3CH2CF3
8,060
242
HFC-227ea
HFC
LCG
100 %
CF3CHFCF3
3,350
38.9
FK-5-1-12
FK
Liquid
100 %
C6F12O
<1
7 days
FIC-13I1
FIC (2)
LCG
100 %
CF3I
.0001
0.4
0.005
> 96 %
HCFC-123
0.02
79
1.3
<4%
Ar
n/a
<2%
CF4
6,630
> 50,000
HCFC Blend B
HCFC &
PFC blend
CGS
LCG - Liquefied Compressed Gas; ODP - Ozone Depletion Potential; GWP - 100-year Global Warming Potential;
CGS - Compressed Gas in Solution
Note 1: Source: IPCC 5th WGI Assessment Report
Note 2: FIC-13I1 has B.P. = -23 C.
Toxicity of halocarbon streaming agents. The toxicity of streaming agents is assessed based on
the likely exposure of the person using the extinguisher. This is sometimes measured using
breathing zone samples. All of the streaming agents in Table 18 are considered safe for normal
use in non-residential and unoccupied applications. Use of some of these agents in confined
spaces may be a cause for concern. In particular, FIC-13I1 has a NOAEL of 0.2 vol % and a
LOAEL of 0.4 vol % and, as such, poses risks to personnel in confined spaces.
Environmental Factors of halocarbon streaming agents. The environmental factors for
halocarbon streaming agent alternatives are the same as those discussed for halocarbon total
flooding agents. Information on ODP, GWP and atmospheric lifetime are presented in the table
below. Traditional streaming agents (e.g. water, aqueous salt solutions, dry chemical, and foam)
do not present environmental concerns in the areas of ODP, GWP, or atmospheric lifetime but
may offer other environmental risks associated with the use of additives, e.g., fluoro-surfactants.
Page 27 of 37
Agent
HCFC Blend B
96% HCFC-123
< 2% CF4
< 4% Argon
HFC-236fa
HFC-227ea
FK-5-1-12
Efficacy
Vapour toxicity
moderate to
high.
Toxicity
Safety
Characteristics
Environmental
Characteristics
(1)
FIC-13I1
ODP
0
GWP
8,060
CostEffectiveness
ODP
0
GWP
3,350
ODP
0
GWP
<10
ODP
0.4
GWP
0.0001
3.4
Dry chemical extinguishers are of two types. Ordinary dry chemicals, usually formulations
based on sodium or potassium bicarbonate, are suitable for fires involving flammable liquids and
gases. Multipurpose dry chemicals, usually formulations of monoammonium phosphate
(MAP), are suitable for use on fires of ordinary combustibles such as wood, paper and fabrics
and fires involving flammable liquids and gases. Both ordinary and multipurpose dry chemicals
may be safely used on fires where electrical circuits are present; however, after application dry
chemical residue should be removed because in the presence of moisture it could provide an
electrical path that would reduce insulation effectiveness. The table below summarizes key
attributes of dry chemical streaming agents.
Principal known use of FIC-13I1 is as a substitute for halons for fire protection of rim seals on floating roof
petroleum tanks.
Page 28 of 37
Dry chemicals
Toxicity
Safety Characteristics
Pressurised containers
Environmental
Characteristics
Cost-Effectiveness
~ 0.2
Efficacy
3.5
Straight-Stream Water
Straight stream water is suitable for use on fires of ordinary combustibles such as wood, paper
and fabrics only. This type of extinguisher is unsuitable for use in extinguishing fires involving
liquids or gases and in fact could spread a flammable liquid fuel. Straight stream water
extinguishers are unsafe for use on fires where energised electrical circuits are present. The table
below summarizes key attributes of straight-stream water as a streaming agent.
Table 21: Water, straight stream
Agent
Efficacy
Toxicity
Safety Characteristics
Non-toxic
No adverse characteristics.
Not suitable for use on electrified equipment.
Environmental
Characteristics
No significant risk
Cost-Effectiveness
~0.5
Page 29 of 37
Water spray extinguishers are most suitable for use on fires of ordinary combustibles such as
wood, paper and fabrics. This type of extinguisher may be less effective on deep-seated fires.
The spray stream is generally more effective on burning embers and may provide a limited
capability for fires involving combustible liquid fuels. Some water spray extinguishers can be
used on fires where live electrical circuits are present. Users should ensure that the extinguisher
has been tested and certified before use on live electrical circuits. Some manufacturers have
introduced water mist fire extinguishers into commerce. The table below summarizes key
attributes of water mist or spray as a streaming agent.
Table 22: Fine water spray as a streaming agent
Agent
Efficacy
Toxicity
Non-toxic
Safety Characteristics
No adverse characteristics
Environmental
Characteristics
No significant risk
Cost-Effectiveness
~0.6 (~9 litre extinguisher unit; cost index compared to a 10B-rated CO2
unit)
3.7
Aqueous solutions of certain salts are used in fire protection for certain types of hazards. Water
containing certain dissolved salts has been found to be more effective than water alone in the
extinguishment of fires. Potassium salts are usually employed. Examples include potassium
acetate, potassium citrate, potassium formate, potassium lactate, and others, sometimes in
combination, and with additives to inhibit corrosion, promote aqueous film-forming action to
suppress vapor evolution from flammable liquids, and solution stability. Applications for
aqueous salt solutions include fire protection for commercial cooking equipment and industrial
vehicles. Some attributes of aqueous salt solution agents are summarized in the table below.
Page 30 of 37
Efficacy
Toxicity
Safety Characteristics
Environmental
Characteristics
No significant risk
Cost-Effectiveness
~0.7 to 1 (~9 litre extinguisher unit; cost index compared to a 10B-rated CO2
unit)
3.8
Extinguishers using water and AFFF additives may be more effective than those using clean
water only on fires of ordinary combustibles such as wood, paper and fabrics. Additionally, water
with AFFF additives will have improved ability, over water alone, to extinguish fires involving
flammable or combustible liquids. Also, this agent has the ability to reduce the likelihood of
ignition when applied to the liquid surface of an unignited spill. The aqueous film forming foam
reduces vapour propagation from the flammable liquid.
Depending upon the stream pattern, this type of extinguisher may not be safe for use on fires
where live electrical circuits are present.
The table below summarizes key attributes of streaming agents employing AFFF. It should be
noted that some currently-available AFFF agents contain surfactants consisting of perfluorinated
eight-carbon (C8) molecular chains that are known to be biopersistent and bioaccumulative once
released to the environment. The environmental impact of using AFFF agents containing C8
fluoro-surfactants must be weighed against the potential gain in efficacy when selecting a
portable extinguisher for each specific application. A number of manufacturers have ceased or
will cease production in 2015 of fluoro-surfactants containing the problematic C8 species. The
performance properties of AFFF agents using reformulated fluorosurfactants should be verified.
Page 31 of 37
Efficacy
For use on Class A fires not involving electrified equipment or materials that
are reactive with water (e.g. metals).
For use on Class B fires.
Toxicity
Moderate.
Safety Characteristics
Environmental
Characteristics
Cost-Effectiveness
~0.6 (~9 litre extinguisher unit; cost index compared to a 10B-rated CO2
unit)
3.9
Distinctions are often made by national bodies as to the acceptability of certain agent types in
commercial and residential applications. Agents that have the potential of forming toxic
byproducts in a fire are usually deemed unsuitable for residential use 7. Based on this premise the
suitability of agents for residential use is summarized in the table below.
For example, the U.S. EPA defines residential use to mean use by a private individual of a chemical substance or
any product containing the chemical substance in or around a permanent or temporary household, during recreation,
or for any personal use or enjoyment. Use within a household for commercial or medical applications is not included
in this definition, nor is use in automobiles, watercraft, or aircraft.
Page 32 of 37
Table 25: Suitability of fire extinguishing agent alternatives to halon 1211 for use in local
application fire protection in residential applications
Substitute
Constituents
Suitable for
Residential Use?
Surfactant Blend A
Yes
CO2
Yes
Water
H2O
Yes
H2O
Yes
Foam
Yes
Gelled Halocarbon/Dry
Chemical Suspension
HFC-227ea
CF3CHFCF3
No
HFC-236fa
CF3CH2CF3
No
FK-5-1-12
CF3CF2C(O)CF(CF3)2
No
Hydrofluoro-polyethers
Hydrofluoro-polyethers
No
HCFC Blend B
No
Dry Chemical
Yes
Yes
Flammable
Liquids
Fair
Suitable on
Energised
Electrical
Hazards
Yes
Good
Good
Yes
Fair
Good
Good
Poor
AFFF
Good
Fair
No
Poor
Good
Poor
Poor
Water Stream
Good
Poor
No
Poor
Good
Poor
Poor
Water Mist
Good
Fair
Yes
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Halocarbon
Good
Good
Yes
Good
Good
Good
Good
Halon 1211
Sodium Bicarbonate Dry
Chemical
Potassium Bicarbonate Dry
Chemical
Good
Good
Yes
Good
Good
Good
Good
Poor
Good
Yes
Fair
Good
Good
Poor
Poor
Good
Yes
Fair
Good
Good
Poor
Agent Type
CO2
Page 34 of 37
Flooding agent
Streaming agent #1
Streaming agent #2
31
31
18
1300
1380
1300
5.6
6.1
4.8
6.9
6.9
6.2
NOAEL, vol %
10
1.25
2.5
LOAEL, vol %
12.5
2.5
>2.5
ODP
<2
<20
<20
Boiling point, C
Unsaturated hydrobromofluorocarbon, (HBFC). The chemical 3,3,3-trifluoro-2-bromo -prop-1ene, CAS 1514-82-5 has been the subject of study as a fire extinguishant since before 2000. For
brevity this chemical is referred to as 2-BTP. It has been submitted to the U.S. EPA for review
under the SNAP programme for use as a streaming agent. While 2-BTP does contain bromine, as
do halons, this chemical has a very short atmospheric lifetime (about 7 days), an ODP of 0.0028
and a GWP of 0.26. As such, this chemical is not deemed as a potentially significant contributor
Page 35 of 37
New atomisation technology using two-fluid system (air and water) to create ultrafine
mist with spray features that are adjustable by changing the flow ratio of water to air or
nitrogen.
Water mist combined with nitrogen to gain extinguishing benefits of both inert gas and
water mist
Each approach to generating fine water mists has its own advantages and drawbacks. Additional
comments on water mist systems are given in Sections 2.3 and 3.6.
4.0
Conclusions
Alternative extinguishing agents and technologies are available for nearly all new fire protection
applications that previously employed halons. A current (2014) exception is the fire protection in
cargo bays of civil aviation, where none have passed the International Aircraft Systems Fire
Protection Working Group Minimum Performance Standard (MPS) for cargo bays. For some
legacy systems used in military aviation and vehicles, and in oil and gas production facilities,
retrofit with current halon alternatives is not technically or economically feasible at this time.
5.0
Sources
See Morrison
See Colton
10
See Madden
Page 36 of 37
Page 37 of 37